The existence Satan

[Hoghead1]

It is also the case that the NT makes about 40 references to the Apocrypha.

 

[brotherjerry]

And nope sorry...my use of Bob is just as relevant as anyone using Enoch. Because Enoch cannot be reconciled using other books of the Bible and does not fit with the conventions of the accepted Words, then it is simply another work that is not considered inspired work as the other 66 books are.

I was not going to go through the entire details but found this site that talks about the difference and shows how it is reconciled using the Bible.

Edit: forgot link
https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=796

 

[brotherjerry]

It is also the case that the NT makes about 40 references to the Apocrypha.

Not really...There are few direct quotes, many allusions and many that could be, but could be also other references to other books in the Bible...paraphrases instead of quotes.

 

[Hoghead1]

I didn't say direct quotes, Brother Jerry. Now, if you want to attribute these allusions to other sources, you can. But they certainly do refer to material in the Apocrypha. There is o denying that.

 

[Hoghead1]

Who is considering Enoch not an inspired, Brother Jerry? Certainly, not Catholicism. You mean Protestants after 1647, right?

 

[Hoghead1]

I, for one, do not agree with the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I spend considerable time on this. I initially thought of doing my doctorate in biblical studies, then switched to theology. I have covered the literature in detail, and I am convinced the DH is correct.

 

[brotherjerry]

Who is considering Enoch not an inspired, Brother Jerry? Certainly, not Catholicism. You mean Protestants after 1647, right?

Um..yes the Catholics do not consider Enoch as inspired. The only Apocrypha Old Testament works considered inspired by the Catholics are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees. They also add the sections of Esther and Daniel which are absent from the Protestant OT.
It should also be noted that the Jews also do not include the Apocrypha as inspired...and have not for quite some time before Christ was born.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

Um..yes the Catholics do not consider Enoch as inspired. The only Apocrypha Old Testament works considered inspired by the Catholics are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, I and II Maccabees. They also add the sections of Esther and Daniel which are absent from the Protestant OT.
It should also be noted that the Jews also do not include the Apocrypha as inspired...and have not for quite some time before Christ was born.

I do not believe you are correct as the Jews do not consider anything but "Thus saith YHWH" as inspired. Otherwise, they have the histories/writings/wisdom, and the prophets.
There was no "canon" list in Israel until the Christ rejecting Pharisees of the first century decided to ban Enoch precisely because Enoch clearly teaches the Son of Man in heaven who was to come as Messiah was Christ.
Too bad that in the fourth century, the rulers in Rome [who fancied themselves the controllers of the thoughs of men under their power] decided to follow the Christ rejecting Jews and not include Enoch, which was very much believed to be inspired writing/sacred Scripture, by many of the "Church Fathers' who came before them.

Canon is all about poilitics and power, not about the Holy Spirit's declarations. And as power and politics change, so do the "lists" the rulers of men's minds deem worthy to receive.

 

[BobRyan]

Who is considering Enoch not an inspired, Brother Jerry? Certainly, not Catholicism. You mean Protestants after 1647, right?

I think he means "Jews" in the first century and "Josephus" in the 4th century and all the Protestants that came later.

 

[BobRyan]

It is also the case that the NT makes about 40 references to the Apocrypha.

And Paul refers to the saying of the "Cretans" in Titus 1.

 

[BobRyan]

Sorry but the onus is on the claimant. You are the one claiming they were burnt up. You are the one claiming that someone re-wrote the Torah from nothing.

Bob never said we have the original manuscripts or that they were not re-written...but what we know from the history of the Jews and their writing traditions that are verifiable is that they were meticulous in transcribing their written word. When a scroll or parchment was becoming too worn then a copy was made. But making a copy is dramatically different than recreating something from memory as you suggest happened.

That is true - copying and not having the original autograph is one thing.

Making stuff up without having any source at all -- as the "copy" is entirely bogus.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

I didn't say direct quotes, Brother Jerry. Now, if you want to attribute these allusions to other sources, you can. But they certainly do refer to material in the Apocrypha. There is o denying that.

That is true, and anyone who does a study on it will see it.
Also, Jesus did celebrate Hannukah, the Festival of Lights, and that is from the Maccabee period.

Interesting in the fact that the cleansing of the temple celebration of Lights, called Hannukah was prophesied as the Day of the incarnation long before Hannukah became a feast day in Israel, in the time of the Maccabees.

In Haggai 2, there is the unclean vessel/garment lesson from the Living Oracles/the Law, which teaches that a clay vessel/ a garment, once defiled, defiles anything it carries that is holy. The garment in that oracle of Haggai 2 is the human being flesh that defiles all it touces and can never offer a pure sacrifice or enter into the true Holies in the heavens, so the prophet declares the laying of the Foundation Stone for the second temple [not made with hands] which is to be laid on the eve of the 24th Day of the ninth month, and the racle of it was the same second temple made with, hands having its foundation stone laid on the same day, but it was an oracle for the Not made with hands temple. God is come in New Creation flesh, which is the garment Christ/Messiah He put on, which was prepared in the womb of a virgin for His donning as Kinsman [Isaiah 59] The Stone is laid, and the incarnation date was the eve of the 24th day of the ninth month. Hannukah begins on that Eve! Jesus incarnation date is in the Word, and the Feast that celebrates Him as the Miracle Light is the Feast of Hannukah, from the times of the Maccabees!
His birth then, was the eve of Tabernacles. His circumcision, then, was the 8th Day, that Geat Day, which is the living Oracle of the Sabbath Millennium, when the o- rehearsal of the Oracle of circumcision is fulfilled and the Adam spirit is cut off, forever, and never multiplies its kind by the seed within the kind, anymore, for the Adam spirit perishes from that Day -but the unrepentent Adam souls in their own bodies are cast into the Lake of Fire, to be tormented by the Satans there, forever.




In the oracle of Haggai 2, the second temple built on the Foundation Stone which was to be laid on the eve of the 24th day of the ninth month was to be more glorious than the first temple. This is the oracle of the Adam creation race, and the New Man name race, built of adopted sons, cleansed and regarmented in spirit and flesh, by the Messiah come in flesh as the Firstborn Son of God [Adam was, and is dead in spirit], who is Christ come in the flesh/garment [Isaiah 59/Rev 19], of second man creation.

The second temple in Haggai 2, oracled, is more glorious than the first [Adam] and the Foundation Stone was Oracled to be laid on what later, in the time of the Maccabees, became the Feast of Hannukah. The very eve of Hannukah, which was not made a Feast until the Maccabees times.
In the Book of Maccabees we read of the "miracle of the lights for the cleansing of the temple...
[the "Firstborn son of God of the human being kind is Adam, made to be living stone for the living temple to be built up for the Glory to indwell, and to "plant the heavens'. and was to be the first temple not made with hands to build up the Temple for the Glory.
Now, there is a Foundation Stone laid for the Second Temple not made with hands, and the Maccabees established the Feast of His incarnation, by the working of the Holy Spirit, in that time.

 

[yeshuasavedme]

That is true - copying and not having the original autograph is one thing.

Making stuff up without having any source at all -- as the "copy" is entirely bogus.

Not true. There are many fragments and some more full, copies of the Torah and the prophets that do not agree letter for letter. There has only been a concensus of agreement what copies to use, and so we have come down to mainly, a Masorite text written in the 800's AD -long long time from original copies.
The Masorites were biased against Christ in flesh, also, for they changed the "A body hast thou prepared me" to gibberish, as we see in Book of Hebrews quote of it from Septuagint, which was from Hebrew. So the Bias against Christ continued even then and letters were changed.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copies of the Torah and prophets used by them differed, also, even in their own collections.
Through it all, the Message of the Christ who was to come and is come is unchanged, though ignored by blindness, but to say the Word itself is divine, is contradictory to Christ Jesus who said they thought there was "life" in the writings/scriptures, but the Life is Himself, which the Scriptures testified of.

 

[Papias]

it is simply another work that is not considered inspired work as the other 66 books are.

Um - Different Bibles have different numbers of books. The Bible used by the RCC has 73, others have 90, over 100, or other numbers. The 66 book Bible is used only by a minority of Christians, after all. There never has been a canon agreed to by all Christians, and there isn't one today. Calling some of the inspired books the "Apocrypha" and removing them from the Bible is something that some Christians have done, but is not something that most Christians agree with, worldwide.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
That is true - copying and not having the original autograph is one thing.

Making stuff up without having any source at all -- as the "copy" is entirely bogus.

Not true. There are many fragments and some more full, copies of the Torah and the prophets that do not agree letter for letter.

You are conflating two entirely different things.

in the first instance you argue for the entire Bible made up out of whole cloth because you claim the one in the temple was left there to be burned by the Babylonians even though the ark of the Covenant and the Bible it contained were removed.

Now you are equivocating between that and some letters or a word here or there dropped or picked up - in text that is being "copied from" or "To" rather than a document that is being "made up from scratch".


The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that little to know mistakes were introduced over many centuries of time for example in the book of Isaiah.

 

[BobRyan]

Um - Different Bibles have different numbers of books. The Bible used by the RCC has 73, others have 90, over 100, or other numbers. The 66 book Bible is used only by a minority of Christians, after all

The actual fact is that the 66 books are in harmony with the 39 books of the OT in the Hebrew Bible - the content of which had not changed for over 400 years prior to the time of Christ according to Josephus. Even though the Jewish grouping of books was different from the Protestant one - the content of the OT was the same. And even Jerome in his Latin Vulgate admits that none of the apocryphal books were canonized OT - Hebrew Bible.

The Catholic claim to in some way own or define the Jewish Hebrew Bible - is as bogus in substance as it appears right from the start.

 

[brotherjerry]

Also, Jesus did celebrate Hannukah, the Festival of Lights, and that is from the Maccabee period.

Two things...Biblical evidence of what you are claiming? Also even if Christ did celebrate these things...just because it comes from that period does not mean those books should automatically be considered canon. That is silly.

Not true. There are many fragments and some more full, copies of the Torah and the prophets that do not agree letter for letter. There has only been a concensus of agreement what copies to use, and so we have come down to mainly, a Masorite text written in the 800's AD -long long time from original copies.
The Masorites were biased against Christ in flesh, also, for they changed the "A body hast thou prepared me" to gibberish, as we see in Book of Hebrews quote of it from Septuagint, which was from Hebrew. So the Bias against Christ continued even then and letters were changed.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copies of the Torah and prophets used by them differed, also, even in their own collections.
Through it all, the Message of the Christ who was to come and is come is unchanged, though ignored by blindness, but to say the Word itself is divine, is contradictory to Christ Jesus who said they thought there was "life" in the writings/scriptures, but the Life is Himself, which the Scriptures testified of.

And this is not true. What we actually learned form the DSS was validation of the meticulous copying that the Jews did in order to preserve the Word of God. We leanred for example that there were "two copies of Isaiah found in the Qumran Cave I, they were dated a thousand years earlier than our other earliest manuscript previously know which was about 980 AD. The proved to be word for word identical in more than 95% of the text. The 5% variation consted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling. The do not affect the message of revlation in the slightest" (Gleason Archer, Survey of the Old Testament, p23-25).
Professor Robert Dick Wilson in Scientific Investigation of the Old Testaament made the following comments:
"The Hebrew Scriptures contain the names of 26 or more foreign kings whose names have been found on documents contemporary with the kings.
In 144 cases of transliteration from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Mabite into Hebrew and in 40 cases of the opposite, or 184 in all, the evidence shows that for 2300 to 3900 years the text of the proper names in the Hebrew Bible has been transmitted with the most minute accuracy.
For neither the assailants nor the defenders of the Biblical text should assume for one moment that either this accurate rendition or this correct transmission of proper names is an easy or usual thing." (P64,71-72)

To get more specific with the Isaiah scrolls. Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjuctions. The remaining 3 letters comprise the word "light" which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. This, in one chapter of the 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission - and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage. (Burrows, TDSS, p304)

There is non-Hebrew evidence as well. There are various ancient translations, called versions, of the Old Testament. These provide as valuable witnesses to the text. The Septuagint (LXX) for example, preserved a textual tradition from the 3rd century BC, and the Samaritan Pentateuchal tradition may date from the 5th century BC. These and the Masoretic Text provide three Old Testament traditions that when evaluated critically, supply an overwhelming amount of support for the integrity of the Old Testament text.

Not only is what you implied about transmission errors patently false, but the idea that God did not preserve His word faithfully to be transmitted from generation to generation would mean that God's inspiration of the Word to be written would have been for nothing.

 

[brotherjerry]

Um - Different Bibles have different numbers of books. The Bible used by the RCC has 73, others have 90, over 100, or other numbers. The 66 book Bible is used only by a minority of Christians, after all. There never has been a canon agreed to by all Christians, and there isn't one today. Calling some of the inspired books the "Apocrypha" and removing them from the Bible is something that some Christians have done, but is not something that most Christians agree with, worldwide.

In Christ-

Papias

That is a funny statement....when I go to the Christian book store, I find the vast majority of Bibles to contain only 66 books. It seems the denominations that use more than that, tend to be more secretive...they either don't want their people to read the Bible, or they want the money from printing the Bible for themselves and never license it out.

 

[Papias]

BobRyan said: ↑

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that little to know mistakes were introduced over many centuries of time for example in the book of Isaiah.

Know, it's know tru that their were little to know mistakes. Like any copied material, there were many errors. It is true that scholars are surprised at how accurate they are, because they contained thousands of changes instead of tens of thousands – that’s a far cry from the perfection you’ll hear about though. The books varied greatly in their quality. While Isaiah had fewer alterations, more altered books like, say, Psalms, which as many changes to the content, order, and presence of the Psalms, in addition to having a half dozen Psalms that aren’t in the Bible. I have a copy of the DSS, and there are footnoted changes on nearly every page, with many pages that have between 6-10 changes. It’s true that most of these changes are trivial, such as misspellings or minor word changes, but some are much more significant – like changes to a verse used for the trinity, etc.

The actual fact is that the 66 books are in harmony with the 39 books of the OT in the Hebrew Bible -

That's moving the goalposts. The whole hymnal in a church can be "in harmony" with 39 of the OT books, but that doesn't make them scripture.

And even Jerome in his Latin Vulgate admits that none of the apocryphal books were canonized OT - Hebrew Bible.

The Catholic claim to in some way own or define the Jewish Hebrew Bible - is as bogus in substance as it appears right from the start.

Sounds like something to talk with on the Catholic page - feel free to make a thread there.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

That is a funny statement....when I go to the Christian book store, I find the vast majority of Bibles to contain only 66 books. It seems the denominations that use more than that, tend to be more secretive...they either don't want their people to read the Bible, or they want the money from printing the Bible for themselves and never license it out.

Because the Christian bookstores you go to must cater mostly to protestants. Only Protestants, who make up only about 35% of all Christians, use the 66 book Bible. The Eastern Orthodox, The Roman Catholics, most African churches, and many more use Bibles with other numbers of books. It's not that they are more "secretive", it's that you are basing your views on just what you've seen yourself, locally. That's like person in Iceland thinking the whole world is snowy, or a person in Utah thinking that nearly all Christians are Mormon.

In Jesus-

Papias